Washington Post bias rallies abortion supporters

How unfortunate that the WaPo chose to color this article, “A clinic’s landlord turns the tables on anti-abortion protesters” with “anti-choice” stereotypes depicting all pro-life activists as violent. Obviously, there hasn’t been violence at the Stave office building or, I’m sure, it would have been prominently reported in this article. Instead, the focus goes to Roy Carhartt, who does abortions at the clinic. Carhart isn’t an OB/Gyn, but performs late term abortions for a living and also claims to be a “Family Physician.”

The article is supposed to be about Todd Stave, who founded “Voices for Choice,” which solicits volunteers to contact pro-live activists, supplying names, phone numbers,  addresses and sometimes even the names of children. From the Voices for Choice website,

Todd Stave is an entrepreneur in the Washington, DC area who believes in a woman’s right to choose. He also believes in every American’s fundamental right to his or her own opinions but loathes bullies, harassers and antagonists who cross the lines of civility and decency.

In reality, Stave owns a building that once was his abortionist father’s clinic and is now an abortion business run by his sister.

After Roy Carhart started doing late term abortions there in late 2010, local pro-life activists began to petition Mr. Stave to change his business practices. They called him and personally contacted him, even going so far as to protest at his home.  Last August, two people stood outside of the school where one of the Stave children attended middle school, quietly – and legally – praying and demonstrating with signs.

I don’t support protesting outside the school of such young survivors of abortion and agree that it’s a horrible thing to have to explain to an 11 year old that Daddy makes his living from renting a building to people who perform late term abortions.

I believe in small government and personal responsibility. Communicating our moral beliefs and community standards by personal interaction are much better than sweeping laws in the pursuit of influencing our neighbors.

Speaking of responsibility: I hope and pray that those “pro-life” activists who receive the phone calls from the pro-abortion volunteers are engaging their callers in a real conversation about elective abortion.
I also hope that the pro-life men and women make note of the caller ID information. After all, most violence around those who advocate in favor of elective abortions is committed by the so-called “pro-choice.”  I hope Mr. Stave’s (& now Wapo’s) volunteers at VOChoice.org never commit violence.

May the Lord bless all of our Nation with understanding about what abortion really is. Odd that if you break the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species list, it doesn’t matter that it was an embryo or fetus, you’ve still broken Federal law. But the only species having this conversations doesn’t protect our own children of tomorrow from elective, intentional abortion.

Best questions from Supremes on ObamaCare debate

The only thing sure in life is death and taxes. The difference is that “We the People” can avoid taxes by making sure our Republic is sound and avoid the errors that the founding fathers  and de Tocqueville (and I) warned us about.

Unfortunately, our Nation has decided – whether by default or not – that a group of nine appointed Justices are not only the “highest court in the land,” they are the highest LAW in the land. And so, we find ourselves at the mercy of the whims – and sometimes the least consistent – of these justices

I’ve been scanning the transcript from the Tuesday, March 27, 2012 debate before the Supreme Court, which is available at the SCOTUS website.

A question by Justice Alito :

“All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, “You know what you’re doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you’re going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don’t have burial insurance and you haven’t saved money for it, you’re going to shift the cost to somebody else.”

“Isn’t that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?”

RedState.com’s Erick Erickson wrote about “Sinners in the hands of Anthony Kennedy,” and noted “the quote heard round the world,” from Justice Kennedy:

“But the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

“And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Hear and read the passage, at Real Clear Politics.

Erickson points out that the media are changing the meme of the debate from whether the law is Constitutional to a rant that the Conservatives on the Court are bullying the rest. The Houston Chronicle joins the chorus and proves Erick’s point.

To think that I almost posted this without adding the Category “Media Abuse.”

Abortion of the Teaching Moment

Public policy in education and ethics discourse are approaching a climate in which there are no standards of morality and no expectation of – much less recognition of – any ultimate Truth and no acknowledgement of right or wrong other than arbitrary enforcement of faddish laws.

“The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.”

Earlier this month, I reported on the Journal of Medical Ethics’ “After Birth Abortion; Why should the baby live?” The quote above is from one of the editors of the Journal, Julian Savulescu, who apparently does not understand that his support of “rational argument” and “freedom of ethical expression” is a substantive moral view, dogma or moral outlook. Savulescu is a perfect example that my opening statement is true.

Among the many unintended consequences of this lack of standards is that there is now seems to be no place for teaching and learning. How do our teachers, much less our students, develop judgment about ethics in a world with only subjective standards? How do our teachers correct a horrible overstepping of what were once considered boundaries if there are no boundaries?

Where and when do we find the teaching moment, an opportunity to review basic ethics and learn once again why these ethics fit the event or question?

David Dewhurst for Senate, Ted Cruz should retract his negative ads

I’m endorsing Texas‘ Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in his race for US Senator and calling on Ted Cruz to retract his false, negative ads.

As a stalwart champion for the right to life, marriage and small government, David Dewhurst has demonstrated the strength of his Conservative philosophy and credentials while serving as President of the Texas Senate.  He supported the passage of our Tort Reform, Prenatal Protection Act, Woman’s Right to Know Act,and this year’s Sonogram Law, “Loser Pays,” and Voter ID Law. He has opposed ObamaCare, called for the resignation of Eric Holder for his part in running guns to Mexico and backed Governor Perry in his fight against Federal attempts to encroach on Texas’ state sovereignty.  He stood his ground in spite of stunts pulled by Senate Democrats, including their month-long trip to New Mexico in 2003. His answers to the committee that interviewed him, as well as his history, won him the endorsement of Texas Alliance for Life. (I’m on the Board of Directors of TAL.)

I am impressed with his ability to work out agreements among Conservatives separated by degrees on fine points. One day in 2007 stands out in my memory as an example of Dewhurst’s leadership: Lt. Governor Dewhurst brought a group of us together in his office to hammer out an agreement on significant reform for the Texas Advanced Directive Act. He was a calming, firm influence on the large group. I didn’t detect any pressure from him, although the Session was winding down and this would be the last day the legislation could be passed in the Senate.

Last Fall, I wanted the Lieutenant Governor to remain in his current office so we’d have the security of his experience and leadership  when (as I had hoped) Governor Perry became President. Because I hoped to have a Governor Dewhurst sworn in in December, I originally decided to support Ted Cruz and even gave him a donation, even though I wondered about his switch from an aspiring Attorney General to the Senate race.

Unfortunately, Ted Cruz and his Senate campaign staff haven’t built their campaign on why Mr. Cruz is qualified and should be Senator. Instead, they’ve spent time and money on abrasive, negative attacks on the Lieutenant Governor, a fine man who has served Texas honorably. Several of the ads have been blatantly false, including a very early one concerning the Transportation Security Agency anti-groping bill (passed in the Special Session) and another claiming that Dewhurst had backed an income tax in 2005 (debunked by the Austin-American “Politi-facts” as “Pants on Fire“).

I spoke to Mr. Cruz’ staff about my disapproval of their attempts to sully the Lieutenant Governor’s reputation last November at the Texas Federation of Republican Women Convention and again at the Comal County Candidate forum on the first of February. The staffers argued with me both times and nothing changed.

The negativity continued. On February 23, Ben Shapiro of Big Government helped spread a false rumor about a “fundraiser” supposedly held by Obama supporters at the home of one of the Podestas. There were no funds raised, and the “home” is actually a townhouse that is often used by a PR firm for meetings. Neither the sponsors nor the invited guests were Democrats or “Liberals.” Shapiro wrote a luke-warm retraction on February 24th, but noted that Cruz’ staffer, James Bernson, defended using the earlier version. Many of us received emails with the false claims on February 28th.

Cruz’ facebook page still contained these false claims as late as last week.

Mr. Cruz is very young and has never held an elective office or proven himself able to build coalitions that we all know are necessary for legislation to pass in either the State or Federal House and Senate. Texas Legislators learn that it is better to persuade their opponents than to tear them down, even when one side has a majority, because of the pressures of our short Sessions. Cruz only knows the adversarial techniques that he must have used to argue cases in court where it’s evidently not enough to be right: the opponent must be depicted as wrong – and guilty.

The race for the open Texas Senate is not a matter of Conservative vs. RINO. It’s not incumbent vs. fresh ideas and energy. It is experience and a proven legislative ability vs. what appears to be a win-at-all-costs, aggressive and arrogant display of disregard for the history and the truth of a good man’s record.

David Dewhurst is conservative and a leader. He has a record over the years that proves that he is not timid or a RINO, at all. Neither is he abrasive and negative as Mr. Cruz has proven himself. I hope you will join with me in supporting David Dewhurst for the Senate.

Paralysis, Gridlock?

Are the Republicans causing “gridlock,” “paralysis,” etc. in Congress? Is it the Republican-controlled House or the Democrat-controlled Senate that can’t pass bills, can’t even pass a budget? Why is the theme of the day that nothing is happening in DC because of (wink, Republican) extreme partisanship? (See “Senate Gridlock explained in one chart,” “‘Deliberative’ Senate gripped by paralysis,” “Chipping away at Senate gridlock,” and the many articles about how “moderate” Olympia Snowe is.) (Whatever you do, do not mention “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords, much less Arlen Specter.)

My husband and I visited Washington, DC last week with the National Pawnbrokers Association. Members of the NBA heard lobbyists and Legislators in their meetings and visited Capitol Hill to meet with Congressmen and Senators from our States. Time after time, we heard that staffers and the occasional Rep told the pawnbrokers that the two sides are too far apart, too polarized to get any legislation done — or even to have a conversation.

First of all, the partisanship is not new. Take a look at the history of “cloture votes” in the Senate. Does anyone else remember all the talk about – the never invoked –  “nuclear option” or the “constitutional option” when Trent Lott or Bill Frist were Majority Leaders in the Senate? The problem then was that the Senate Dems were using the filibuster to block ALL judicial appointees. That the Dems didn’t want President Bush to appoint judges doesn’t seem equivalent to the fact that Republicans do wish the right to debate and amend legislation that changes or creates law.

Of course, we’re supposed to forget that the Dems had a majority in both the House and the Senate from January, 2007 until the Republicans won the House in the 2010 election and were sworn in in January, 2011. Don’t look at the number of Dems in the Senate, today, or read the news reports that Harry Reid will not even allow a vote on the budget.

Good Dems don’t remember that the Nancy Pelosi House had such a huge majority that they didn’t need a single Republican vote to pass legislation — and yet they still shut down the tradition of “open rule” on Republican amendments. One day, Pelosi even shut off the lights and CSPAN cameras in an attempt to silence Republicans!

And really good Dems deny that Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” to force ObamaCare through the Senate — while changing the rules for the Senate for all future Congresses. (Reid used “reconciliation” to pass Obamacare. Furthermore, the Act mandates that any recommendation from the Independent Payment Advisory Board on Medicare cuts must go straight to the Senate Finance Committee and all future Congresses may only debate Obamacare with a 2/3 majority vote, and then only for a time set in the original “Accountable Care Act.“)

Why are we called “Conservatives” in the first place? Isn’t it because we prefer transparent government, lower taxes, a strong defense, less spending and defend the right to life and traditional marriage? These are matters of principle that have been in the Republican platform since the ’60’s, at least.  And yet, we’re portrayed by the media as “do nothing,” the “party of no,” and as though it is WE who are trying to make radical changes in the law.

“Obama Standoff,” or To Coin a Phrase – Revised

We used to call it a “Mexican standoff,” but that could be considered bigoted these days. Or at least non-PC.

“Obama Standoff”  is a better description for a specific condition – one that’s becoming more common and hitting us more frequently. In the “Obama Standoff,” the Obama administration demands that Texas, some other State, or any individual or organization of individuals with a conscience,  violate their own laws, Constitution, or conscience – threatening to withhold Federal tax money, fine, or break that law himself if others don’t comply.

Unbelievably, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius visited Houston today and announced – on the Friday before the funding for Texas’ Women’s Health Program expires on Wednesday, March 14 – that she is going to deny renewal of the Medicaid waiver. She did this *before* notifying the State or the Commissioner! See the Governor’s announcement in response, here. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/17025/ )

The Obama Administration doesn’t even care that there will be no meeting of the Texas Legislature until January 2013. Of course, this is the Constitutional scholar in the White House who ignored the meaning of “recess appointment” in January. Why should he honor concepts like the Legislature makes laws and the Executive Branch must follow them?

It doesn’t matter that Texas has had the same law for 10 years  any more than it matters that the Catholic Church has opposed contraception for thousands of years. It doesn’t matter that physicians have defended the right to follow their consciences for 2500 years, since Hippocrates’ oath was adopted by the Profession.

Why should they? They don’t care that the First Amendment guarantees the free expression of religion — to “establishments of religion,” by the way!

In a particularly unconscionable moment, one Obama Administration official told representatives of religious organizations that they had a year to reconcile – with Obama, not with God.

And they certainly don’t understand, much less care, what a “conscience” is other than some roadblock in their goal to control and force every doctor to be complicit with ending human life – or at least make sure to move next door to someone who will.

To paraphrase C. S. Lewis: We laugh at honor and are surprised to find treachery among us.

“Women Speak for Themselves” up to 4 pages

The list of women who have asked to co-sign the open letter to President Obama and Secretary Sebelius is still growing. Have you signed up?
There’s a button on the top of the page, just fill in your name and State, more information is optional. You, too, can say,

Here We Are!

Update on Texas, Contraception, and Women Who Vote (and blog)

Over the weekend, there were more op-eds published in online magazines and newspapers all over the Internet championing women’s “right” to contraceptives and nearly everyone of them tied that “right” to the “right” to obtain an abortion. Search the news on “Texas contraception politics” and you’ll find a few dozens of articles published repeatedly in newspapers across the Nation. They often begin discussing cuts in State funding for contraception and move straight to the theme that mean old Republicans in Texas just don’t want to pay for abortions.

Yes, we don’t want to pay for abortions or support corporations that do them. That is our “choice.”

However, the reality is that Texas Legislators had no choice other than to cut spending. Where is the money going to come from?

Texas also cut money to train resident doctors – the future family doctors, OB/Gyns and pediatricians because there was not enough money. But I don’t see any articles on “The war against physician workforce.”

The only way to raise money would be to raise taxes. In order to raise taxes, we would have to have a vote to change our Constitution. I, for one, would vote “no.”

Everyone – including the Obama Administration – ignores the fact that Texas’ part-time Legislature will not meet again until January 2013, so there won’t be a chance to change the funding until after the November election.

Please notice the hateful tone of many of the blogs, op-eds and especially the readers’ comments and letters to the editors. And note that they always focus in on abortion – and that even the National articles narrow in on Texas. The truly mean comments claim that Republicans hate women. Some articles are even titled, “. . . War on Women,” and “When States Abuse Women.” One of the “War on Women” articles was published in the UK’s Guardian.

Women vote in Texas. We believe that life begins at fertilization and that every human being is endowed by our Creator with the right to life.

And we sure don’t have extra money to pay higher taxes. How hard is that concept to understand?

Here are the women – thousands of us

Earlier, I linked to an “Open Letter to President Obama, Secretary Sebelius and Members of Congress.” There are now about 2000 names of women from all over the country who volunteered to add their “signature” to the letter. I believe that more will be added, since I received a response from the organizers on March 3, but can’t find my name on the list.

Here is the “Open Letter” in full:

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

DON’T CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable — but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking “women’s health” in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of “costless” birth control with “equality,” note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

 

(Found my name! Add yours!)

Pro-Planned Parenthood against @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry wrote an Editorial about the refusal of the Medicaid waiver for our Women’s Health Program by the Obama Administration. While it appears that very few news organizations actually print the op-ed, many have published their own, and a few reference the Governor’s essay. (A search at Google News on “Women’s Health Program” yields about 100 media posts, more blogs.)

Once again, the comments from the media and readers are derogatory, don’t contain the facts, and very critical of all of us “anti-abortion idiots” (per one commenter at Texas Tribune).

Texas has had law limiting the distribution of Medicaid and the Woman’s Health Program funds to those who perform, refer to, or affiliate with abortion providers for years, and received waivers in the past – even from this Administration – under this law.

The real difference is that this year, the Legislature prioritized funds to providers who provide comprehensive, continuing care at Federal, State, local, and County health clinics.

Yes, there was a renewal of the ban on abortion providers, although PP itself was never mentioned. And, yes, the Attorney General has clarified the meaning of “affiliate.”

However, while a nice side benefit, PP wasn’t excluded because they are PP. They were excluded because the State had to prioritize our funds and PP doesn’t offer comprehensive continuing care. They don’t treat high blood pressure, but Federally Qualified Health Centers do. They don’t treat diabetes, but the health clinic run by the county does. They don’t even write orders for mammograms, they just have a list of clinics that do.

In the last few months, the State has already made contracts and arrangements with other providers for a more efficient use of the limited funds we have. If access is cut, it won’t be for a lack of doctors and clinics – it will be because the Obama Administration doesn’t like the way our Legislature decided to prioritize the funds.

There is no federal law that says that Texas has to make contracts with anyone and everyone. As pointed out by the Governor and in this fantastic letter from the Executive Commissioner of the State Department of Human Services, Tom Suehs, the Social Security Act specifically gives the right to the State Legislatures set preconditions for contracting with the State to provide Medicaid.

Since PP only provides a narrow range of care, they don’t qualify – even though they aren’t mentioned in the law. They don’t treat high blood pressure or diabetes, or even do mammograms.

However, the Obama admin – and all those hateful commenters and editorializers – choose to focus on only one “provider.” The same organization that had 4 illegal abortion clinics shut down in San Antonio. The one that gives directions to facilities that do mammograms, but doesn’t even write prescriptions or give orders for the mammogram lab. The one that Texas is finding surprisingly easy to replace.

Now, our limited State tax dollars will go to Women’s Health Program doctors and clinics where they can receive treatment after being screened.

British Journal of Medical Ethics: “after-birth abortion”

“1. The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
“2. It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her
from developing the potentiality to become a person in the
morally relevant sense.”

The British Journal of Medical Ethics  continues to publish thought exercises that go against common sense and traditional medical ethics, “emphasising” (British spelling) the utilitarian world-view  of today’s “medical ethics,” without the slightest acknowledgment that there might be harm in the act of arguing that not all human beings are “morally relevant persons.”

This month, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, redefine “abortion,” “euthanasia,” and “infanticide” in “After-Birth Abortion: Why should the baby live?”

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

The arguments don’t work other than as an example of the logical results of the utilitarian world view that has come to dominate medical ethics and to illustrate what Leon Kass called “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” or the “yuck factor.”

One of the editors, Julian Salvulescu, who believes that values and conscience lead to “a Pandora’s box of idiosyncratic, bigoted, discriminatory medicine,” defends the piece on the grounds that that the ideas are not new.  Indeed, the authors discuss the history of killing babies before and after birth because of medical diagnoses such as Down’s syndrome and after birth due to suffering of the child or the lack of worth placed on the child by his or her mother. The Netherland’s “Groningen Protocol” for active euthanasia of children is mentioned as precedent for government support for their position.

We should let these “expressions” be a warning to us all in these days of increasing government involvement in healthcare. As the authors argue,

“Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Freedom of expression and the discussion of even such unpopular ideas do have a place in our world. However, I wonder at an “ethics” journal whose editors claim that their

“Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.”

Obviously, they do support “sound rational argument” and “freedom of ethical expression”  over “moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks.”

At what point would the editors determine that “ethicists” should be censured, corrected or even retrained? Would the Journal publish a “sound rational argument” that advocates the end of “freedom of ethical expression?”

Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than women’s health | LifeSiteNews.com

An op-ed by Joe Pojman, PhD, the Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life, which discusses who is really to “blame” if the Texas Women’s Health Program is cut because we lose our Federal funds. (I’m privileged to be on the Board of Directors of TAL.)

Last June the Texas Legislature overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 7, which allows for the renewal of the WHP, on a Senate vote of 21-9 and a House vote of 96-48. The bill prohibits the state from contracting with entities that “perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”

Federal law allows Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion declaring that federal law allows states to exclude abortion providers and their affiliated organizations from Medicaid.

There are ample alternate WHP providers in Texas who are not involved in abortion. These physicians and clinics typically offer comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning. These providers could become the medical home for low-income women. The Obama Administration is about to deny WHP funds to these quality providers, and to the women they serve, just because Texas wants to fund these without funding Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is a poor investment of public funds. Planned Parenthood offers only a narrow range of services and is unwilling or incapable of offering comprehensive primary and preventative care. Planned Parenthood cannot treat breast cancer. They do not even have one mammogram machine anywhere in Texas. The only time a woman will see a doctor at Planned Parenthood is if she is there for an abortion. Women deserve better.

Planned Parenthood should not be trusted with our tax dollars. For example, Planned Parenthood of San Antonio operated four abortion facilities illegally without a license for as long as four years until they were discovered by the State in 2009 and fined more than $100,000. They were required to return thousands of dollars billed to the WHP.

The Obama Administration, not the Legislature or the Governor, will be to blame for killing the Women’s Health Program, if the Obama Administration does not renew the program just because Planned Parenthood is excluded.

via Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than women’s health | LifeSiteNews.com.

Artificial womb and the right to life

It often seems that we fight increasing de-volition of traditional human and medical ethics with new technological advances. Here’s evidence that sometimes ethics and the understanding of human dignity can or could advance.

hat would an artificial womb mean? Well,according to this futurist,

In immediate terms, the foundations on which a woman’s rights to choose are predicated in Roe v. Wade, namely the issue of fetal viability and the right to privacy (the right not to be pregnant), will be rendered virtually meaningless.  First, once a fetus can be safely and entirely gestated outside of a biological womb, it can be removed from its mother.  Second, ectogenesis means that viability starts with conception.

(by Soraya Chemaly, original at RH Reality Check)

I’m  reminded of a science fiction story about the need to duplicate the normal intrauterine environment  that I read in the 80’s, which ended with the advice, “Use original container.”

However, would we say that or the equivalent to a recipient of a heart or kidney transplant? Or even a diabetes patient?

The interesting argument, here, is that the extra uterine *individual* is recognized as a human being, a being with his or her own humanity.

Enabling vs. Providing “Infrastructure” for Family Planning (and a Map of Government-Funded Family Planning Providers in Texas)

It’s not just right wing, Christian “anti-choicers” (we really prefer to be called “pro-life”) who understand that paying abortion providers and those who refer to them under Medicaid and Title X funds enables them to do abortions. From the Guttmacher Institute:

Title X is a grant program under which funds are distributed to grantees who design and operate their own programs—funding can be targeted to local needs and challenges. Unlike Medicaid, for example, Title X can subsidize the intensive outreach necessary to encourage some individuals to seek services. Furthermore, by paying for everything from staff salaries to utility bills to medical supplies, Title X funds provide the essential infrastructure support that enables clinics to go on and claim Medicaid reimbursement for the clients they serve.

So, whoever receives title X funding is “enabled” to stay in business. In these days of low tax revenues and high demand, shouldn’t Texas only “enable” comprehensive, continuing care?

Unfortunately, Texas representatives of Texas taxpayers found themselves limited in funds this year and we had to prioritize where we allocated Family Planning money. Funding for the Family Planning programs and the Texas Women’s Health Program, which receives Medicaid money, was directed toward programs and doctors that offer continuing, comprehensive care, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), State, County and local clinics and hospitals, and fee for service doctors that participate with Medicaid.

However, in article after article, the law which sets aside money to pay for contraceptives and never mentions Planned Parenthood, is said to have been a weapon in the war on contraceptives and abortion, and in particular, against Planned Parenthood.

Medicaid is supposed to be a health program for the very poor, but Congress has allowed States some flexibility when it comes to the disabled and to pregnant women, through a system of waivers. Texas began our Women’s Health Program in 2007, asking for a waiver to spend funds to screen women for disease, including high blood pressure, diabetes, and even tuberculosis, not just for STD’s, breast cancer and cervical cancer. The program also pays for the prescription and dispensing of contraception – including Natural Family Planning! – to women who are not pregnant or disabled, and who would not otherwise be eligible for Medicaid.

The Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services has refused this year’s request for a waiver to apportion the funds because of the stipulation that the State’s money will not go to affiliates of those who either perform or refer to elective abortions.

Just to be clear, “elective abortions” mean those that are done because the healthy mother carrying a healthy child seeks an abortion, not those done to prevent damage to her health or save her life. “Elective abortions” don’t even include those done in healthy mothers with healthy babies who were conceived through rape or incest. Procedures to treat tubal or ectopic pregnancies are never considered abortions, either “elective” or medical.

The law, HB 7, passed in the Special Session of the 82nd Legislature does not mention Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider. The text stresses that our State must prioritize how we are to spend our limited tax dollars:

Sec.531.0025. RESTRICTIONS ON AWARDS TO FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE PROVIDERS. (a)Notwithstanding any other law, money
appropriated to the Department of State Health Services for the purpose of providing family planning services must be awarded:
(1) to eligible entities in the following order of descending priority:
(A) public entities that provide family planning services, including state, county, and local community health clinics and federally qualified health centers;
(B) nonpublic entities that provide comprehensive primary and preventive care services in addition to family planning services; and
(C) nonpublic entities that provide family planning services but do not provide comprehensive primary and preventive care services; or
(2) as otherwise directed by the legislature in the General Appropriations Act.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the Department of State Health Services shall, in compliance with federal law, ensure distribution of funds for family planning services in a manner that does not severely limit or eliminate access to those services in any region of the state.

(b) Section 32.024, Human Resources Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c-1) to read as follows:
(c-1) The department shall ensure that money spent for purposes of the demonstration project for women ’s health care services under former Section 32.0248, Human Resources Code, or a similar successor program is not used to perform or promote elective abortions, or to contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.

The Texas Tribune has published a map of family planning clinics in Texas, claiming to point out which clinics will stop receiving taxpayer money in March of this year.

The  In Texas, the Legislature has drastically reduced funding for family planning agencies that serve low-income women statewide. There are 41 agencies that receive funding today, down from 71 last year. Those organizations often operate multiple clinics that provide Texans with contraceptives and disease screenings.

Using the most up-to-date information available through the Texas Department of State Health Services, we have mapped out the locations of government-subsidized family planning clinics in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Not only are there fewer contractors each year, but those that receive grants are getting less money. During the 2011 session, lawmakers redirected virtually all state funds that have traditionally gone to family planning services to other programs. Today, nearly all public funding for these clinics comes from the federal government’s four-decade-old Title X program, which is dedicated to family planning.

via Updated: Map of Government-Funded Family Planning Providers in Texas.

Everyone who would like to support those clinics, should send a donation — because the Texas Legislature won’t meet again until January of 2013 and the law can’t be changed until then.

Judge: Washington Can’t Mandate Pharmacists Dispense Plan B | LifeNews.com

A victory – 5 years in the making – for conscience. freedom of religion, and the “free exercise thereof.”

A lower court issued an injunction against the new rules, on the basis that the suit was likely to succeed. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court ruling that had temporarily put on hold a requirement for pharmacists to dispense all legal drugs.

Now back at the lower court level ruling on the merits of the case itself, the court issued the pharmacists a legal victory.

“The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable,” the Court explained. “They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.”

“The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections from their inception,” the court explained. “Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious reasons].”

via Judge: Washington Can’t Mandate Pharmacists Dispense Plan B | LifeNews.com.

WomenSpeakForThemselves.org

WomenSpeakForThemselves.org.

Here are the women, President Obama and Secretary Sebelius!

We are not mute. We will not be silenced or ignored. We will make a difference.

Go Galt in Place:Unite behind God, Constitution, getting the Government out of the way

God, Constitution, Government out of the way. Can we unite or do we divide over degrees of commitment to these? What are you going to do to rebuild this nation based on God, Constitution and getting the Government out of our lives?

God includes the unalienable rights endowed on us by our Creator.

Constitution includes the current document as it was written and amended, and subject to amendment by its own rules.

Get the Government of the way of ordinary day to day life, out of the way of worshipping our God, out of the way of following the Constitution and forming better local governments. out of the way of building a business and out of the way of taking care of neighbors and educating our kids.

Now, think it out here at the board.

Heritage Action Endorses Deal on Payroll, Unemployment and “Doc Fix”

Don’t be too quick to call our Republicans “RINO’s!”

Heritage Action for America is part of the family of Heritage Foundation institutions. They have noted the purely political nature of the arguments about the “tax cut extension” and support those Republicans who voted for the recent bill that extends the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and prevented a huge cut in pay to doctors who see Medicare patients.

The deal comes after House Republicans prepared to move a standalone extension of the tax cuts. That changed the dynamic in two ways. First, President Obama and his allies became nervous about the fate of unemployment insurance benefits if they were not tied to the tax portion. Second, the insistence on “paying for” the extension of a tax cut (i.e., stopping a tax increase) waned. Why? Because allowing Americans to keep more of their own money shouldn’t be offset, because that wasn’t the government’s money to begin with.

Much of the gridlock surrounding the payroll tax cut extension came because Democrat negotiators insisted on preventing a tax hike by implementing a different tax hike.

via Deal Reached on Payroll, Unemployment and “Doc Fix” – Heritage Action for America.

Yes, Virginia (and the other 56 States), not everything in Congress is black and white – or absolutely Conservative vs. not-Conservative.

The final solution to big government is obviously to not only cut growth of government, but to get rid of past growth. We must also face the reality that spending must be cut.

However (you knew there would be a “however,” didn’t you?), the very conservative Heritage Action for America stressed to members of Congress and the rest of us that the best solution at this time was to move in such a way to prevent the other side from claiming victory – and doing so every two months throughout the election year.

The Proposition 8 Decision: Not Rational | RedState

Elegant rebuttal – by Red State diaryist Dan McLaughlin – to the 9th Circuit Court’s decision that Courts make the big decisions and the people and legislatures may not.

In fact, you cannot believe in moral progress of any kind if you do not believe in tradition, only a sort of moral Brownian motion in which nothing learned today has any guarantee against being unlearned tomorrow.

via The Proposition 8 Decision: Not Rational | RedState.

(Edited to add Mr. McLaughlin’s name and link.)

Has Sarah Palin Forfeited the Role of Uniting Conservatives?

I believe that Governor Sarah Palin had the potential and many opportunities over the last 3 years to unite us in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he built his coalition between 1976 and 1980. The fact that she did not isn’t because Governor Palin herself is divisive, but because we Conservatives are a cantankerous and factious bunch who tend to eat our own and fight over degrees of commitment to the principles we hold dear.

“We’ll keep our God, we’ll keep our guns, we’ll keep our Constitution.”

Palin gave what should be a unifying,  landmark speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). She warned against turning on our candidates,

  “We know that the far left and their media allies can’t beat us on the issues, so instead, they distort our records,” she said. “They’ll even attack our families. Let’s not do the job for them. OK, Republicans? OK, independents?”

The news contains report after report about Palin’s passionate speech to an overflow crowd who cheered her with even more passion.  Human Event’s Tony Lee is not the only one who asked, “. . . how many who were listening to the speech were coming to the realization that Palin should be the GOP nominee for president?”

The problem is that Palin refused to be the candidate. Worse, she still has not supported any of the candidates, and her words at CPAC are being used to “do the job.”

Palin delayed her announcement about whether she would run for too long, adding to – or at least enabling – the very division and conflict within the Conservative movement that she told us to avoid in her CPAC speech.

While Mitt Romney,Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum were visiting Iowa and New Hampshire long before announcing their candidacies, Palin coyly deferred any commitment to running. The very loyal and enthusiastic Palin supporters went on the attack against anyone who looked like a possible candidate in their hope that she would run. The rhetoric continued even after the announcement that she would not run, with those same supporters interpreting Palin’s comments to justify building up or tearing down through many re-shufflings of the front-runners.

And now, rather than calling for unity among Conservative voters, Palin seems to be supporting a brokered convention. Well, just as I called for her to make a decision about running for President, I’m asking her to use her power and skills to bring us together behind one of the Conservatives, whether an announced candidate or not.

I have a little crush on Big Government’s Andrew Breitbart. In “The Undefeated” documentary on Sarah Palin that was released last year by Steve Bannon, Mr. Breitbart chastised the rest of the Republican men for their failure to defend and protect Governor Palin. And Mr. Breitbart delivered my favorite line of the entire week in his speech on the “silver pony tail gang,” that morphed from the anti-war movement to the Occupiers : “Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate!”(full video here)

Governor Palin, please join Mr. Breitbart and me in our march against the Occupiers and Barack Obama.

Surreal Occupy Sarah #CPAC2012 video on YouTube

Bless their little hearts.

Here’s the url of the video of the bunch of very well dressed, well fed chanters who attempted to disrupt Sarah Palin’s speech at CPAC in Washington, DC on Saturday, February 11, 2012.

I’m always struck by the Occupiers’ Kafka-esque use of shout and repeat in their public declarations.  It is surreal to watch and hear a group of Americans subvert their individuality into a collective repetition of short segments which are first dictated by their leader. I wonder how many realize that this form of speaking is reminiscent of catechisms and hymns, a tool to teach illiterate congregants official doctrine?

“Equality” and “solidarity” do not require the participants to chant the same words. Individuality and individual strengths and talents build strong movements, nurturing communities, and societies of opportunity.

Follow @bnuckols Tweets @CPACNews #CPAC2012

Take a look at the far right sidebar for my tweets, or search Twitter #CPAC2010 Governor Palin will be up in about an hour, watch on CSPAN, CPAC.org

CPAC: My first and probably my last

I have a new expletive or two for really, really, really bad “screw ups”: one is CPAC and the other is the name of one particular rude CPAC staffer I encountered.

I’ve had a miserable time at CPAC, the only shining moments were Governor Rick Perry’s speech, Andrew Brietbart’s rant about Obama and the “silver pony-tail gang”, and the Presidential Banquet with Paul Ryan’s talk and the privilege of meeting some wonderful Conservatives. I was especially struck by one panelist’s comment that the proof that faith and family are priorities and that the proof is that the TEA Party hasn’t literally formed a third party.

I’ll complain about the Convention itself later, but, first, the Politics!

Here at CPAC, virtually everyone who finds out I’m from Texas told me they were rooting for Perry and/or that he was their first choice. The exceptions were one who switched over from Sarah Palin, two that were interested in Cain, and one Ron Pauler; all but the Pauler had supported Perry while he was in the race.

Governor Perry’s speech was extraordinary and had more passion and truth than all the current candidates’ speeches. He gave the boldest speech so far.

For the Powers That Be, all the candidates should have acted like they were at CPAC. Early in the speeches, we needed to hear their conservative ideas, social issues, and self-criticism of their past mistakes, preferably with a passionate conversion story, preferably one that made us all know how strong and permanent the change has been. At CPAC convince us that you could smell the brimstone and feel the singe of the heat.

Instead: We got Santorum’s very sad-faced family and 20 minutes of foot-stomping and whining without any substantial plan, Romney’s wide-eyed gaze at us, and his assumption that he’s already won and we’d better study his 50 page plan. Newt not only had his friend introduce Saint Calista, but Newt himself gave us big government plans to *replace* the EPA with a new Federal bureaucracy and *reform* the FDA, both of which should be abolished and their regulations returned to the States.

And now, to my own rant about the Conference: I have a new expletive or two for really, really bad times: one is CPAC and the other is the name of the incredibly rude staffer I encountered on Thursday

My husband and I have attended several very large conventions (The Texas Straw poll in ’07, the Value Voters Summit in DC in ’08, American Academy of Family Physicians with up to 10,000 in attendance, the National Pawnbroker’s Convention, and the Texas Republican State Convention, etc.) The system and facilities for CPAC2012 are the worst I’ve ever experienced.

The Marriott’s too small, the ballroom was set up wrong, and no one could have designed a more dangerous traffic pattern, even without the Mormon missionaries standing shoulder to shoulder, blocking traffic in the halls and lobbies.

I could never recommend that anyone pay for “Platinum Package.” Several people have said that they should have saved the money and gone “Diamond.” And it turns out that there’s another level of Very, Very Important People, but none of the rest of us get to even glimpse them.

I’m told that all previous CPACs offered less security rules and presence and more access to the Candidates and celebrities. That access was exactly why I asked my husband to buy me the “Platinum Package” tickets for my birthday this year. I also signed up for Blogger credentials (free), as well.

Well, there was no access.

The bloggers were divided weeks ago into the in-crowd and the rest of us.

And money can’t buy happiness, either. I’ve been in more lines this week than I thought possible, and there has been very little of the promised “special lines.” Even the “VIP entrance” is a joke: I’ve been stopped more than half the time and then still fight the fire-hazard crowds in the single in/out aisle. On the first day, I couldn’t find and empty chair in the “Platinum/Diamond” area until after noon. The Platinum Balconies offer little or no view and the food is available for very limited times.

The opportunity to hear the 3 main candidates in one day and to meet some great Conservatives is the only benefit I’ve seen this week at CPAC. (You can follow my tweets @bnuckols )

Unfunded “compromise:” who pays for it?

I mean, besides the insurance companies? Your neighborhood doctor and pharmacist will be forced to pay their “fair share,” too, I bet

Washington (CNN) — The White House announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. And pills, diaphragms, and sterilizations don’t come free, either.

The end goal and the certain end result of this administration is to push private medicine out of business. We will all soon work for Uncle Sam unless we can turn the policies around.

Do you want to go to DC, hat in hand, for the health care your family and loved ones need?

Christian Medical Association on Contraception Mandate:Senate Dems block debate

The CMA sent out a couple of press releases by email, today on the attempts by members of Congress and the Senate, including some Democrats, to overturn the ObamaCare mandate that everyone who offers health insurance to their employees must offer plans that pay for contraception. The mandate would require Catholic health systems and schools to provide coverage that is against long held Church teachings.  (Disclosure, I’m Baptist, think true contraception is ok, and I’m the Chair of the Family Medicine Section of the CMA which is the same as the much longer, Christian Medical and Dental Association, the CMDA.)

Christian Medical Association: Contraception mandate fits pattern of assaults on conscience and religious liberty

Washington, DC–February 9, 2012: The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association today issued a statement asserting that the government’s mandate of contraception coverage nationwide fits a growing pattern of assaulting and restricting First Amendment freedoms of conscience and faith.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, “The government contraception mandate violates the First Amendment rights and sensibilities of any individual or organization morally committed to life-honoring faith principles. The coercion likewise tramples the conscience rights of health care professionals ethically committed to the historic Hippocratic oath. And it fits a deplorable pattern of disregard for First Amendment freedoms.

“In the past three years, people of faith and conscience have witnessed the gutting of the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care; the denial of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion; the administration’s lobbying of the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations’ hiring rights; and a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government’s ideology on the faith-based and pro-life communities.

“The contraception mandate’s affront to religious freedom actually extends well beyond the Catholic Church, since many physicians and patients outside the Catholic tradition hold that it is morally or ethically wrong to risk ending the life of a developing human being by using pills such as ella and the morning-after pill. These pills are falsely promoted as ordinary contraceptives despite clear FDA label warnings that ‘ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus’ and that the morning-after pill (Plan B) “may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.'”

“To force every American to subsidize an ideological agenda that many find morally or ethically abhorrent is the antithesis of American First Amendment freedoms of religion and conscience.

“The First Amendment issue of religious and conscience liberty impacts Americans of all political stripes. Conscience freedoms protect Americans left, right and center, on issues ranging from abortion to the death penalty, from participation in war to the right to protest political actions such as we are witnessing now.

“Every American, regardless of political persuasion, should be protesting these assaults on our freedoms and contacting legislators to enact conscience-protecting legislation such as the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced in the House by Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb. 1st) and in the Senate by Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

“As Dr. Martin Luther King reminds us, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'”

To remedy the assault on religious liberty and conscience freedoms, the Christian Medical Association supports the following legislation:

S. 1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

S. 2043 – Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012

S. 906 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

S. 877 – Protect Life Act

S. 165 – Abortion Non-Discrimination Act

H.R. 1179 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

H.R. 361 – Abortion Non-Discrimination Act

H.R. 358 – Protect Life Act

H.R. 3 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Senate Democrats Block Debate on Religious Freedom Amendment

‘Our founders believed so strongly that the government should neither establish a religion, nor prevent its free exercise that they listed it as the very first item in the Bill of Rights.  And Republicans are trying today to reaffirm that basic right. But Democrats won’t allow it.’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the Democrats’ refusal to allow consideration of an amendment on the Obama administration’s mandate in the health care law that violates the First Amendment rights of religious institutions:

“Our country is unique in the world because it was established on the basis of an idea: that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights — in other words, rights that are conferred not by a king or a president or a Congress, but by the Creator himself. The state protects these rights, but it doesn’t grant them.

“And what the state doesn’t grant, the state can’t take away. That’s what this week’s debate on a particularly odious outcome from the President’s health care law has been about: Our founders believed so strongly that the government should neither establish a religion, nor prevent its free exercise that they listed it as the very first item in the Bill of Rights.

“And Republicans are trying today to reaffirm that basic right. But Democrats won’t allow it. They won’t allow those of us who were sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution to even offer an amendment that says we believe in our First Amendment right to religious freedom. I never thought I’d see the day. I’ve spent a lot of time in my life defending the First Amendment. But I never thought I’d see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it.”

Jonathan Imbody

Vice President for Government Relations

Christian Medical Association – est. 1931, now 16,000 members

CMA Washington office: P.O. Box 16351 • Washington, DC 20041

703.723.8688 • http://www.cmawashington.org

Director, Freedom2Care – 50 groups and 29,000 individuals advancing conscience rights

http://www.Freedom2Care.org  Twitter: @Freedom2Care

#CPAC2012 day 1 @CPACnews

In the spirit of “if you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything at all,” nothing follows.

Pa. Vending Machine Dispenses ‘morning-after’ Pill | Fox News

I’ll admit that I don’t like Over The Counter hormone preparations. But isn’t this going too far in the name of convenience?

Students at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania can get the “morning-after” pill by sliding $25 into a vending machine, an idea that has drawn the attention of federal regulators and raised questions about how accessible emergency contraception should be.

via Pa. Vending Machine Dispenses ‘morning-after’ Pill | Fox News.

The pill only works during 5 or 6 days of a girl’s cycle. But what if she throws her cycle off several times a month?

And studies show that even when women have the pills in the medicine cabinet, they don’t use it correctly.

BTW, I’m convinced that Plan B is not an abortifacient – does not cause abortions by interfering with implantation or development if there is fertilization. It can block ovulation for 5 days before ovulation and it makes the mucus thick at the cervix and uterus so sperm and egg have a hard time getting together. It doesn’t change the way that implantation goes and it may even encourage the protection of the new embryo by moma’s body

See my “Review: Plan B, How It Works and Doesn’t Work” at this link:

If, as I believe, the pills only work in preventing fertilization, they are only medically justified/necessary 5 days before or one or 2 days just after ovulation, the window of fertility. The other 20 days or so of the menstrual cycle, the pills are useless and un-necessary.

The best evidence is that Plan B works to prevent ovulation or to prevent the oocyte (the “egg”) from being released from the ovary and passing to the fallopian tube. This is why the pill is best (and only?) functional before ovulation. In nature, the egg only lives about 24 hours and sperm can live from 2 to 5 days. If the egg is not released, is over 24 hours old, if the sperm cannot get to the egg or if they are dead or incapacitated, there can be no fertilization.

The only post-ovulation effect that has been proven that could prevent pregnancy also prevents fertilization. Levonorgestrel causes the mucus in the cervix to be thick (so sperm have a hard time getting to the uterus and then the fallopian tube where the egg is) and by making the sperm unable to penetrate the zona pellucida, the covering and nurturing cells around the oocyte or egg.

Remember Natural Family Planning? This is the method of following body temp and cervical mucus changes to help figure out when a woman is fertile and when she’s not. The post-ovulatory changes that indicate the non-fertile time immediately following ovulation are due to a progesterone similar to the one that is in Plan B.

Also, the progesterone increases the likelihood of implantation and supports that early pregnancy by delaying the period and encouraging the lining of the uterus to develop.

Of course, the single, small dose in Plan B doesn’t have as great an effect as the hormones from the corpus luteum after ovulation.

Nominate a grassroots blogger for CPAC Blogger of the Year! @SonjaHHarris @CPAC2012

Do we want a big name blogger – one who is nearly a member of the traditional media – named to the CPAC Blogger of the Year? Or do we want a grassroots, self-taught blogger like you and me to represent us?

I know many of the bloggers who will most likely be nominated and would be proud to call them friends, but Sonja Harris better represents me and most of the Pajamas crowd.

So read the blog, nominate Red Sonja!

EMAIL THIS FORM, FILLED OUT WITH YOUR INFORMATION, TO BloggerAward@conservative.org

CPAC 2012 Blogger of the Year Award
Please submit nominations by COB on Wednesday, February 8

Your Name: ____________________
Your Organization/Blog:_____________
Your Email Address: ___________________
NOMINEE: ________Sonja Harris, Conservatives in Action_____
Nominee’s Blog Title: Conservatives In Action_____________________
Nominee’s Blog URL: http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/
Nominee’s Twitter ID (if applicable): @SonjaHHarris
Nominee’s Email Address: __libertyphoto@att.net_________________________________

Description of Merit:

Self-taught conservative with an email list that is forwarded to over 10,000 readers a week, including Israeli and other international readers. While the e-mail is her biggest effort, Sonja has a facebook page https://www.facebook.com/#%21/pages/Conservatives-in-Action/219411951422716 and publishes a blog under the name “Red Sonja” at http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/
She also publishes on TexasGOPVote.com http://texasgopvote.com/users/sonja-harris
Sonja was a volunteer blogger for the Rick Perry campaign in Iowa http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-perry-and-iowa-caucus-2012.html , live-blogged the Newt Gingrich/Herman Cain debate in Houston http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/11/cain-gingrich-debate-on-november-5-2012.html ,

and has covered Texas http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/06/medina-valley-hs-class-of-2011-and.html , national and international news.
Please read her coverage of Pro-life rallies, take a look at her photographs of political and social events and her series on art. http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/02/photographys-place-in-art-art-for-our.html
http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/04/arts-in-your-community.html
http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/04/art-and-conservatives.html

So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.
James 4:17
CONSERVATIVES IN ACTION

Conservative Advice For @MittRomney, @NewtGingrich2012, @RickSantorum

When Conservatives refuse to vote, we don’t just get fewer Republican voters. We end up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.

Conservatives are the foundation of the Republican Party, the remnant that has opposed “statists,” “centrists” and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who the Reagan Democrats joined; the glue and pegs that held together his famous 3-legged stool. We know what the Left re-learns each election cycle but our own Party never seems to: Americans vote to the right of center.

To “Teach Them A Lesson” many Conservatives sat out the 2006 and 2008 elections and a others crossed over in the name of Chaos. The result of both strategies was the defeat of strong candidates in some Primaries, leaving Conservatives with a choice between a RINO, a Democrat or an under-vote. Many who appropriated the title of “conservatives” – those who had never been active (or even voted) in the Republican Party before and those who spent their “meet-up” time with the Libertarian Party – used any and all opportunities to infect the Party with their discontent in the name of “Re-love-ution.”

      The Democrats won a super majority in the House and Senate as well as the White House, allowing Nancy Pelosi to turn off the lights and kick reporters out of the Chamber and Harry Reid to pass “Obamacare” at midnight on Christmas Eve. Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Conyers wielded Committee chairs when they should have been indicted. The media ignored our plainly stated opposition, under-reported our numbers and drowned out our voices as they proclaimed that we lost because the Left better represented the voters and the Country was ready for “Change!”

    The Democrat Senate refuses to pass a budget for the third year and the Obama told the Catholic Church she has a year to overturn 2000 years of doctrine on abortion.

     In spite of 2010 Tea Party victories and a Republican House, our Party had a hard time staying on task.  The “moderates” and some of our conservatives decided to woo independents. Last year’s CPAC invited gay GOProud  and Ann Coulter joined their Council. The Big Tent began to look more like a Circus Tent.

      The media and Democrats now claim the Tea Party is dead and that we’ll see a repeat of 2008 in November, 2012.

      Conservative voters deserve respect, if only for the power of our numbers. Even in 2006, where Conservative voters turned out to vote, Republicans gained offices. Show us you are listening, convince us that you have learned from the mistakes of your own and the Republican Party’s past.

      Republican candidates should search for common threads in our Republican Party Platform, Newt Gingrich’s Contract from America from 2010 and the videos and bloggers’ accounts of those early, nearly impromptu, Tea Party events in February through April, 2009. Send staff to CPAC this week, not to campaign but to listen and learn what Conservatives are concerned about, now.

What would I do to get the Tea Party and Conservatives to turn out to vote and support the Republican Party? Go Right, Candidates!

Quico Conseco, TX GOP congressman links Planned Parenthood to ‘mass murder’

Hooray for Quico Conseco!

San Antonio – Speaking at a town hall meeting this week in Texas, a freshman Republican congressman, elected in 2010 with Tea Party support, took aim at Planned Parenthood by calling the group a “front for mass murder.”

In the somewhat tony Fair Oaks Ranch subdivision, just northwest of San Antonio, Francisco “Quico” Canseco (TX-23) told his audience PP was a “front for mass murder” which “needs to be abolished,” according to BuzzFeed. He added federal funding for support of National Public Radio is “like funding Democratic Public Radio.”

via Op-Ed: TX GOP congressman links Planned Parenthood to ‘mass murder’.